Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
AIM-64C - What you know about air-to-air combat couldn't fill a thimble.
Since i think i know less than both of you i think i wont speculate.
You are to be congratulated, however, for bein
g the best minsinformation disseminator in recent history.
Don't know where they are keeping you locked up , or if they do, but if or when you do i can point you to some example's of 'good' misinformation.
Frankly, we'd be frightened to have you working on our avionics, because you don't know what you're talking about, and can't accept point
outs where you are proven wrong by multiple sources.
Frankly American military aero engineers are pretty ignorant as compared to their Canadian or European brethren who normally do what two or three
American crewmen would. If you must blame someone or something blame the pentagon for having allowed such inefficiently to arise or persist.
This thread was pointed out to us by friends as a source of good humor. In that regard, it has been.
And there really is no accounting for taste or really knowledge.
You are wrong about almost everything in this thread, including the basic physics.
I have found that people who talk about basic physics are rarely as clever as they think they are and on occasion makes a self confessed lay person
such as myself feel quite 'special' in being able to point out obvious ignorance.
For starters, let's just point out the obvious: a jammer is always more effective against a single illumination source, such as continuous
illumination (SARH). Why? Because the jamming signal only needs to go one way, vs. the SARH illumination, which needs to travel to the target and
back.
In my admittedly limited knowledge the most serious drawback with SARH is that any interruption in radar illumination will result in a very probable
miss. That being said jammers were not until relatively recently,as i understand, all that directional and shear radar power, with directional data
links to bridge the gap, would for the most part be sufficient to get the enemy aircraft to turn away as the SARH warhead does not in fact need to
data link and just homes on the received returns it was originally locked to.. As i understand it's mostly a power game with jamming becoming easier
as the threat comes closer with the inverse being true for radar illumination and data links. Unless strike aircraft can provide their own Jamming or
be closely escorted SARH is by no means obsolete and especially not when fired as part of ARM/IR salvo's
In other words, the jammer can be considerably lower power than the transmitting radar and still get the job done.
Depending on the range you wish to jam what it could be but the Russians were not working with low power systems either.
Received power declines as the fourth power of the range, which means that the reflected power from distant targets is very, very
small.
The point of SARH being that it functions as a receiver set for the host aircraft thus enabling tracking ability without the need for data links..
Wasn't the logic behind SARH that at the point where jamming power becomes a problem the radar returns start increasing due to the SARH
receiver/warhead approaching it's target?
In other words, you need a heck of a lot of transmit power to overcome a small jamming power.
Power is pretty much power and i imagine that jamming power will have to increase at great speed as signal processing power is as well. A combination
of ARMS or HOJ with IR and SARH was for long standard load outs on Soviet aircraft and considering that the air war in question were going to take
place near soviet airspace i have no reason to suspect that the EW battle would have been so easily won by NATO.
And a continuous wave signal is VERY easy to jam....hence the reason SARH is fading out of use.
SARH is fading out of use mainly because engineering now allows for self home abilities due to miniaturization; SARH was a good solution given the
technological and engineering restrictions of the day.
Remember your basic radar equations....time to pick up Simpson's and do some studying buddy. High school physics. Oh wait, you're a Navy
tech, so you probably didn't finish high school.
High school physics? I had plenty of that and radar equations just did not get covered... Must be a hoot to poke fun at the people who will largely
determine what information you will have available to you up there...
Oh, and I just grabbed that as an example because the physics is easy, a quick Google search on "Radar Equation" will give the readers
everything they need to realize you are full of stinky brown material, and it highlights your ignorance.
I can assure you that he is one of the few readers that might actually understand much of what you said. If he didn't/can't your wasting your time
trying to play to the crowd.
Suffice it to say that nearly everything you've written about the AIM-9 and AIM-120 is incorrect as well, as our astute Australian ally has
already mentioned.
His not all that astute ( and that's saying something given how i know what i do ) and frankly i would not pick him as 'ally'. Since i am utterly
dependent on open source information i can but say that officially AIM didn't look to me to be so far off the mark.
Thanks for the laughs, we'll post this above the urinal in the men's room for a few days worth of chuckles.
The Dicemen
I think the joke is on those who wish to fly into the face of modern, not the 1960/70's era crap era air defense the USAF have so much problems
with but then , admittedly, what do i know!
You can feel free to respond with whatever level of derision you think you can get past the sensors as i don't mind insults as long as i stand the
chance to learn something.
Thanks
Stellar
